In “The Grand Design” Stephen Hawking postulates that the M-theory may be the Holy Grail of physics…the Grand Unified Theory which Einstein had tried to formulate and later abandoned. It expands on quantum mechanics and string theories.

In my e-book on comparative mysticism is a quote by Albert Einstein: ?????¦most beautiful and profound emotion we can experience is the sensation of the mystical. It is the sower of all true science. To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and most radiant beauty ??“ which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their primitive form ??“ this knowledge, this feeling, is at the center of all religion.???

Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity is probably the best known scientific equation. I revised it to help better understand the relationship between divine Essence (Spirit), matter (mass/energy: visible/dark) and consciousness (f(x) raised to its greatest power). Unlike the speed of light, which is a constant, there are no exact measurements for consciousness. In this hypothetical formula, basic consciousness may be of insects, to the second power of animals and to the third power the rational mind of humans. The fourth power is suprarational consciousness of mystics, when they intuit the divine essence in perceived matter. This was a convenient analogy, but there cannot be a divine formula.

You are welcome to post your comments, here. Please keep them relevant to the topic being posted.

Please note that this site in no way endorses your e-book.

Clearly you are trying to promote your views on a modified theory of relativity (or at least replace two of the variables). I have thought of doing the same thing at times, but I think it best to leave Professor Einstein’s work alone. I would suggest that rather than try to use this site as a promotion tool for unrelated mystic material that you choose a site that is more in keeping with the theme of your e-book.

This site is not about mysticism, nor do we seek to transfigure good works of faith or science into something quite different from that intended by those who authored them.

Max, my e-book is free and based on five years of research with the assistance of 20 religious leaders and scholars across the USA. I do not promote mysticism, simply try to help those who are interested in it. It is not the right path for everyone. The Special Theory is well known and has three letters – e, m, c – which can be interpreted in other ways. Dr. Einstein would not have approved of my revision.

of course, the author of the 1st quote, above, ignores another possibility: so, okay — there’s no such thing as a “scientific law.” I’d wager that would chill the cockles of their heart.but personally, I agree with the view that says the author is being needlessly grandiose about “science.” why can’t science just be the study of the material cosmos, as it tends to run normally? sheesh.

“This is effectively saying that no metaphysical explanation is warranted in any scientific law.” I disagree. Worse, Hawking seems to be saying “no metaphysical explanation is wanted in any scientific law, so therefore, metaphysics don’t exist. Poof! I have waved my magical logic-wand, etc.”

He (if indeed he *is* the real Hawking!) wants scientific law to be all-encompassing, ergo, it is. That isn’t scientific philosophy. That’s sophistry.

Such an assertion, coming from such a great physicist, would be as painful for me to contemplate as theology from the biologist Dawkins, GOP criticism from movie critic Ebert, or just about anything from Daniel Dennett.

People should stick with what they are good at.

“The effect of the elimination is to render as impossible the intervention or intended intervention of God.” I am reminded of the super-intelligent inhabitants of a computer program denying the existence or even the possibility of existence of “back doors” into the program placed by the (nonexistent) programmer. All without any tangible proof, or even methodology of proof, at hand. Good luck with that, fellahs.

Thanks Mike,

I like your use of the word “wanted.”

No doubt. Interesting analogy. Thanks for stopping by. Come again!

I would contest that these ‘biological machines’ do not determine scientific law. Scientific law is by it’s nature one of the rules by which our universe is governed – we don’t determine it, we merely observe or deduce it. 

I would agree with your assessment in principle, Jamie.  The difficulty with determinism is not in the subjectiveness of observation and deduction, but in the objectivity of drawn conclusions.  On atheism, humanity has only itself with which to communicate.  If our collectively agreeable deductions lead us to a communicated set of conclusions, are we not then the determinists of those conclusions which are resulted from those communicated and agreeable deductions?  In other words, how can we logically separate humanity from the pronouncement of its conclusions?  Therefore, how can we say that the biological machines are not the determinists of the physical laws that they profess to exist?  I submit that to do otherwise is to abandon determinism.  

I, for one, welcome your proposition as one in support of a Logical Christianity, wherein the determinist of physical law is, in fact, God.  In contrast, your proposition does very little to brace determinism as a potential tenet of atheism against a more logical proposition of theism.